Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 07-07-2005, 09:17 PM

JW:
And now, the offending verse from Nachal Hever:

http://www.torahresource.com/Newsletter/Ps22.16.pdf

I would be skeptical of anything this person has to say but as near as I can tell it is the only graphic freely available on the net (you get what you pay for). In front of the graphic though I'm going to include the same last words from the Masoretic text for comparison:

כָּ�?ֲרִי, יָדַי וְרַגְלָי

This truth-challenged Advocate for Jesus has enhanced the line in question but I think it's generally agreed that the offending word is "kaaru". "Kaaru" is an otherwise unknown word so the most likely explanation at this point is this is a spelling error.

What this Advocate didn't point out though, probably because he doesn't know Hebrew is:

1) "Kaaru" would only be the first spelling error for this verse.

2) Note that the second to last word in the Masoretic, "יָדַי ", has a "י" for the last letter while the corresponding word from the fragment appears to end with a "הִ".

This makes 2 spelling errors in one sentence! Who the hell wrote this, George Bush, Jr.'s ancestor?

As near as I can tell the above observation is cutting edge research so if anyone spots any Bible scholars around here tell them they are free to use it.

Next, the Hebrew commentary.

Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

PS - I couldn't help but notice that at the very moment Nachal Hever was discovered Spin had temporarily disappeared from these boards.

JoeWallack · 07-09-2005, 11:37 AM

JW:
And now the Hebrew commentary to help determine whose lion in 22:17. First, I present for your polemic pleasure, only the greatest Hebrew commentator of all time, one intimately familiar with Talmudic tradition which would pre-date the Christian era, The Rashi:

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true

Quote:

17. For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.

like a lion, my hands and feet As though they are crushed in a lion’s mouth, and so did Hezekiah say (in Isa. 38: 13): “like a lion, so it would break all my bones.�?

JW:
I think this is the rule for extant Hebrew commentary on the offending word, that it was "kaari" , "like a lion". I'm not aware of any Hebrew commentary claiming the word in question was other than "kaari". If there was Apologists would be all over it like a Lechner on Miggs.

As I said before, in my opinion the combination of the dominant Hebrew textual evidence for "kaari" and the strong contextual fit of "kaari" would make it likely that "like a lion" is original no matter what the other evidence indicates. Potentially, it could even withstand Hebrew commentary for another word. What we see above though is that after the two best categories of evidence, Hebrew textual and context, the only other category of evidence with potentially significant value, Hebrew commentary, also supports "like a lion".

Evidence for the original word based on translations is a relatively weak category of evidence compared to the above (original texts, context, commentary in original language) because translations introduce two new significant potential problems because of a forced use of a different word:

1) There may no word in the language that accurately conveys the same meaning.

2) Because the Trasnlator has a Choice there may be Bias in the translation.

With the original language of Hebrew the only language that could have much evidential value here would be Aramaic as Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew and would have been made by the same Jews still using the Hebrew. I believe that all of the available Aramaic Targums also support "like a lion".

Next, in a transparent attempt to salvage some small shred of objectivity, we'll look at Greek translations.

Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

andrewcriddle · 07-10-2005, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
And now the Hebrew commentary to help determine whose lion in 22:17. First, I present for your polemic pleasure, only the greatest Hebrew commentator of all time, one intimately familiar with Talmudic tradition which would pre-date the Christian era, The Rashi:

http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...showrashi=true

While accepting Rashi's immense scholarship, it would seem doubtful how far he had access to pre 70 CE tradition.

In general only a small fraction of rabbinic tradition can be securely dated before the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 07-10-2005, 10:16 AM

JW:
Early Christian Greek translations of the offending word generally use "ω�?υξαν" which means "they dug". I've already given the following reasons in General why any Greek translation, no matter what it said, would have relatively weak evidential value here:

1) We have a dominant Textual tradition in the original language maintained by designated sucessors that shows "like a lion".

2) From a context standpoint, "like a lion" fits extremely well.

3) Known Hebrew commentary only supports "like a lion".

4) The most closely related language, Aramaic, and the only one used primarily by Jews still fluent in Hebrew and in Israel, only supports "like a lion".

5) Translations in general are relatively weak evidence compared to the above because the nature of translation Forces a different word to be used and there may be no word available with the exact meaning or usage (such as a language that would allow a sentence with no verb) and the Translation process allows Bias to enter the selection.

Looking Specifically at "they dug" you have the following problems:

1) The Greek word generally means digging in the ground and as far as I know is never used in the context of animal attack.

2) As previously mentioned the entire theme of the Psalm is deliverence while being threatened but Before injury. Using "digging" the hands and feet goes against this context.

We'll look later at the question of whether Christianity has a history of mistranslation of the Hebrew (does a lion read peshitta in the woods?).

Christians would argue that early Jewish Greek translations as well used "they dug". In Christian literature there is supposed evidence that Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, all Jews, used "they dug" in their Greek translations which were made, at least in part, to correct perceived Christian mistranslations. If this is true then having Jews translate "they dug" as opposed to Christians is much better evidence. In my opinion it still couldn't overcome the 5 points above. We have the following reasons though to doubt the evidential value of these supposed Jewish translations using "they dug":

1) Jews gave up using Greek translations in the second century so all evidence of Jewish translations here have been preserved by Christianity.

2) Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were all probably converts with a Greek, rather than Jewish background and none were Rabbis of course. Thus their translations were not "official".

As mentioned previously we also have a reasonable explanation as to why anyone might mistakely use "they dug" instead of "like a lion", especially someone without Rabbinic tradition. Using "like a lion" there is no verb in the sentence. The closest word structurally to "kaari", "like a lion" that is a verb, is "karu", "they dug". Could there be another reason in the Hebrew script itself for someone to mistakenly take "kaari" as "karu"?

Let's dig up Nachal Hever again for another look.

Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Didymus · 07-10-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by Jenn6162
The Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced. Prophecy
Psalm 22:16c
"... they pierced my hands and my feet."
Fulfillment
Matthew 27:38
"And they crucified him ..."

http://www.messiahrevealed.org/

"I was hoping to start a discussion on fulfilled prophecy. We know that the Psalms were written around the 10th century BC, so how could this prophecy be so amazingly accurate while being written so long ago? We know that a man named Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, so this in my opinion is not the kind of prophecy which is unverifiable requiring faith to believe. Thoughts??"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The two major flaws in your argument are that a.) Psalm 22 is not about the Messiah and b.) it's a mistranslation.
The Hebrew does not contain the word "pierced."

Moreover, the Hebrew Bible was used as a source for the authors of the gospels. They mined the Tanakh for verses which they believed could be construed (however spuriously) as Messianic prophecies or predictions of Jesus and constructed their narratives thusly.

Oh...and you're also wrong about when the Psalms were written. 10th century is way too early (and David didn't write them).

Actually, the writer also made a claim that is supported only by the frailest of attestation: "We know that a man named Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God..."

We know no such thing.

That assertion was originally made long after Jesus was said to have been crucified. There's no contemporaneous evidence that he even LIVED, let alone that he was crucified for the reasons set forth in the NT. Those who recorded the legend of Jesus' life - and the purported motives for his execution - were the anonymous gospel writers, cult members who had come to believe that Jesus had actually lived, that he was crucified, and that he was the Messiah. Even they acknowledged that the testimony was hearsay in nature; none claimed to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry on earth.

There is every reason to believe that the gospels were shaped by scripture and legend, not by historical fact. Some of the best support for this can be found by mining the Passion accounts for antecendents in the OT. Indeed, many, many passages derived from the OT can be found in the Passion stories. That doesn't support historicity; it suggests that the gospels, especially the first, Mark, were merely transcriptions of urban legends about the same Jesus figure who was mentioned in Q and Thomas.

Didymus

Seeker2000 · 07-11-2005, 03:42 PM

Hi,

I also noticed the chiasmus when reading Psalm 22, although rather intuitively - I would not have known the term 'chiasmus' for it.

In the linked thread DrJim notices an interesting point:

Quote:

First of all in vs. 17 (16 in most English Bibles), the word lion/pierced is a bit odd. Like a lion" fits the spelling best, but not really the grammar, and it seems to break the neat structure Apikorus described. (Something is a little weird, however, since lions in 17 [Engl. 16] is a short form with 3 letters, >RY ,whereas vv. 14 and 22 [engl. v. 13 + 21] have the longer form, >RYH).

The term 'like a lion' has 'lion' spelled differently than on the other occurrences.

One could also consider the explanation of the sword doing the piercing, like Apikorus suggested.

BTW, if 'karu' rather means 'to dig', is there a different word meaning 'to pierce' in the ancient Hebrew language? Then I guess one would have expected this term to be used if the intended meaning was piercing through the hands and feet.

Finally, take a look at this website: http://www.therefinersfire.org/yeshua_questions_3.htm
The second question+answer from the bottom:

Quote:

QUESTION: But again, this is only your Christian interpretation.

RESPONSE: "The patriarchs of the world will arise in the month of Nisan (the month of Pesach - and, by the way, also the same time as the crucifixion) and will say to him: Ephraim, our Messiah! Even though we are your forefathers, you are greater than we, because you have suffered on account of the sins of our children, and cruel chastisements has come over you...and you were held up to ridicule, and scorned...and you sat in darkness and your eyes beheld no light, and your skin stuck to your bones, and your body dried up and became like wood, and your eyes grew dim from fasting, and your strength was like a potsherd." - Pesikta Rabbati

While this is perhaps intended to be allegorical, it does show that Jewish thought sometimes considered Psalm 22 as being descriptive of the type of suffering the messiah would have to undergo, either in this world, or possibly in paradise before his descent to earth.

Can someone tell more about this Pesikta Rabbati and the Jewish interpretation of Psalm 22 as messianic?

JoeWallack · 07-11-2005, 09:01 PM

JW:
Now let's go back to Nachal Hever where I'd previously shown:

כָּ�?ֲרִי, יָדַי וְרַגְלָי

and noted the following differences between this piece of scrap and the blessed Masoretic text:

1) The Masoretic text has "kaari", a known word, while the Never Halal appears to have "kaaru", an unknown word.

2) The Masoretic text has "יָדַי", a known word, while Nachal Hever has a "ה" at the end of this word, an unknown word.

Now look at this! (waving arms around excitedly and stalking sidelines like a John Maddun):

3) For the last word the Masoretic text has "בִי", a known word, while Nachal Hever has "בִו", where there is a "vav" instead of a "yod", another unknown word.

That would make 3 unknown words in less than two hard to read lines. That's funny and not ה ה funny (if you don't get this joke you have no business arguing in this thread). Was this Scribe an ancestor of George Bush Jr. or could there be another explanation? Consider that:

1) A "vav" is a "yod" that extends farther down.

2) The difference between "kaari" and "kaaru" is a "yod" vs. a "vav" for the last letter. The word with the "vav" would be unknown.

3) The difference between the last word in the scrap is a "yod" vs. a "vav" for the last letter. The word with the "vav" would be unknown. Also note that the Apologist who posted the scrap image "enchanced" "kaaru" while the last word is not enchanced.

4) Moshe Schulman, whose word is Gospel, in my opinion, points out:

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...er/016753.html

Quote:

The reading is K)RW, and this has some serious difficulties with it, since
the aleph makes it a poor conjugation for the verb KRH. I have always
considered this another example of poor writing skills, and the correct
reading should be K)RY, the last letter being an elongated yod, a very
common situation in the DSS. Otherwise we have a verb without a root.

that "yods" in the DSS are often written in the direction (elongated) of "vavs".

Thus it is quite possible that "kaaru" from Nachal Hever was intended to be "kaari".

Now on to the fun part. What did Early Christian Writers think the offending word was? Kaaru Kourt is now in session!

Joseph

TRANSLATOR, n.
One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Wallener · 07-11-2005, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

Can someone tell more about this Pesikta Rabbati...

For starters, it claims that flogging oneself is a good way to learn Torah. It is largely based on Tanhuma, which teaches G-d considers Gentiles (hint: that means Christians) to be ingrates. Specifically, it teaches that in...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psalm 109:7

They repay me with evil for good, with hatred for love.

...the "they" refers to Christians.

I trust that answers your query.

andrewcriddle · 07-12-2005, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker2000

:

Can someone tell more about this Pesikta Rabbati and the Jewish interpretation of Psalm 22 as messianic?

Pesikta Rabbati about the Messiah (Mainly Piska's 31-37) has unusual features.

a/ It emphasises the suffering of the Davidic Messiah referring particularly to Psalm 22 in this context

b/ It gives the name of the Davidic Messiah as Ephraim.

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey · 07-19-2005, 06:50 PM

Why focus exclusively on Ps.22 for the piercing? The canonical gospels only once mention piercing of Jesus on the cross and it has nothing to do with the hands and feet. John 19:34 "but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear".

But the Gospel of Peter also does an excellent job with the piercing prophecy: 3:9 "others pierced Him with a reed" http://www.meetingpoint.org/~swete/

It's not from Psalm 22 but Zech. 12:10 "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" -- which is what the crowds do in both John and Peter. Why did the holy spirit apparently leave it to later commentators to make the Ps 22 connection?

The same gospel adds more fulfilled prophecies not even mentioned in the canonicals, such as "they pushed him" (3:9) taken from Psalm 118:13 ("You pushed me violently"); and how the crowd "were stumbling" (5:18) when the sun turned dark at noonday -- just as Isaiah 59:10 said they would.

Wonder why the holy spirit did not see fit to include these "fulfilled prophecies" in the fourth century bishop-approved gospels?

07-07-2005, 09:17 PM	#61
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	The "Word" From Never Halach JW: And now, the offending verse from Nachal Hever: http://www.torahresource.com/Newsletter/Ps22.16.pdf I would be skeptical of anything this person has to say but as near as I can tell it is the only graphic freely available on the net (you get what you pay for). In front of the graphic though I'm going to include the same last words from the Masoretic text for comparison: כָּ�?ֲרִי, יָדַי וְרַגְלָי This truth-challenged Advocate for Jesus has enhanced the line in question but I think it's generally agreed that the offending word is "kaaru". "Kaaru" is an otherwise unknown word so the most likely explanation at this point is this is a spelling error. What this Advocate didn't point out though, probably because he doesn't know Hebrew is: 1) "Kaaru" would only be the first spelling error for this verse. 2) Note that the second to last word in the Masoretic, "יָדַי ", has a "י" for the last letter while the corresponding word from the fragment appears to end with a "הִ". This makes 2 spelling errors in one sentence! Who the hell wrote this, George Bush, Jr.'s ancestor? As near as I can tell the above observation is cutting edge research so if anyone spots any Bible scholars around here tell them they are free to use it. Next, the Hebrew commentary. Joseph TRANSLATOR, n. One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660 http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html PS - I couldn't help but notice that at the very moment Nachal Hever was discovered Spin had temporarily disappeared from these boards.

07-10-2005, 10:16 AM	#64
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Does Peshitta Take "Like A Lion" In The Woods? JW: Early Christian Greek translations of the offending word generally use "ω�?υξαν" which means "they dug". I've already given the following reasons in General why any Greek translation, no matter what it said, would have relatively weak evidential value here: 1) We have a dominant Textual tradition in the original language maintained by designated sucessors that shows "like a lion". 2) From a context standpoint, "like a lion" fits extremely well. 3) Known Hebrew commentary only supports "like a lion". 4) The most closely related language, Aramaic, and the only one used primarily by Jews still fluent in Hebrew and in Israel, only supports "like a lion". 5) Translations in general are relatively weak evidence compared to the above because the nature of translation Forces a different word to be used and there may be no word available with the exact meaning or usage (such as a language that would allow a sentence with no verb) and the Translation process allows Bias to enter the selection. Looking Specifically at "they dug" you have the following problems: 1) The Greek word generally means digging in the ground and as far as I know is never used in the context of animal attack. 2) As previously mentioned the entire theme of the Psalm is deliverence while being threatened but Before injury. Using "digging" the hands and feet goes against this context. We'll look later at the question of whether Christianity has a history of mistranslation of the Hebrew (does a lion read peshitta in the woods?). Christians would argue that early Jewish Greek translations as well used "they dug". In Christian literature there is supposed evidence that Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian, all Jews, used "they dug" in their Greek translations which were made, at least in part, to correct perceived Christian mistranslations. If this is true then having Jews translate "they dug" as opposed to Christians is much better evidence. In my opinion it still couldn't overcome the 5 points above. We have the following reasons though to doubt the evidential value of these supposed Jewish translations using "they dug": 1) Jews gave up using Greek translations in the second century so all evidence of Jewish translations here have been preserved by Christianity. 2) Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion were all probably converts with a Greek, rather than Jewish background and none were Rabbis of course. Thus their translations were not "official". As mentioned previously we also have a reasonable explanation as to why anyone might mistakely use "they dug" instead of "like a lion", especially someone without Rabbinic tradition. Using "like a lion" there is no verb in the sentence. The closest word structurally to "kaari", "like a lion" that is a verb, is "karu", "they dug". Could there be another reason in the Hebrew script itself for someone to mistakenly take "kaari" as "karu"? Let's dig up Nachal Hever again for another look. Joseph TRANSLATOR, n. One who enables two persons of different languages to understand each other by repeating to each what it would have been to the translator's advantage for the other to have said. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Error...?yguid=68161660 http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2005, 06:50 PM	#70
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	Why focus exclusively on Ps.22 for the piercing? The canonical gospels only once mention piercing of Jesus on the cross and it has nothing to do with the hands and feet. John 19:34 "but one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear". But the Gospel of Peter also does an excellent job with the piercing prophecy: 3:9 "others pierced Him with a reed" http://www.meetingpoint.org/~swete/ It's not from Psalm 22 but Zech. 12:10 "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" -- which is what the crowds do in both John and Peter. Why did the holy spirit apparently leave it to later commentators to make the Ps 22 connection? The same gospel adds more fulfilled prophecies not even mentioned in the canonicals, such as "they pushed him" (3:9) taken from Psalm 118:13 ("You pushed me violently"); and how the crowd "were stumbling" (5:18) when the sun turned dark at noonday -- just as Isaiah 59:10 said they would. Wonder why the holy spirit did not see fit to include these "fulfilled prophecies" in the fourth century bishop-approved gospels?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.